Noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring with Clearsight during awake carotid endarterectomy: A prospective observational study

Continuous vs intermittent Non-Invasive blood pressure MONitoring in preventing postoperative organ failure (niMON): study protocol for an open-label, multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure has become one of the most important vital signs to monitor in the perioperative setting. Recently, the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) recommended, with low level of evidence, continuous monitoring of blood pressure during the intraoperative period. Continuous monitoring allows for early detection of hypotension, which may potentially lead to a timely treatment. Whether the ability to detect more hypotension events by continuous noninvasive blood pressure (C-NiBP) monitoring can improve patient outcomes is still unclear. Here, we report the rationale, study design, and statistical analysis plan of the niMON trial, which aims to evaluate the effect of intraoperative C-NiBP compared with intermittent (I-NiBP) monitoring on postoperative myocardial and renal injury.

METHODS

The niMon trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, international, open-label, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive C-NiBP or I-NiBP as an intraoperative monitoring strategy. The proportion of patients who develop myocardial injury in the first postoperative week is the primary outcome; the secondary outcomes are the proportions of patients who develop postoperative AKI, in-hospital mortality rate, and 30 and 90 postoperative days events. A sample size of 1265 patients will provide a power of 80% to detect a 4% absolute reduction in the rate of the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The niMON data will provide evidence to guide the choice of the most appropriate intraoperative blood pressure monitoring strategy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05496322, registered on the 5th of August 2023.

Continuous Noninvasive Blood Pressure Measurement With "ClearSight" Compared to Standard Intermittent Blood Pressure Measurement in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease. Are Potential Differences Influenced by Phenylephrine or Dobutamine?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the agreement between continuous noninvasive blood pressure measurement with the ClearSight system (cNIBP-CS) and standard intermittent noninvasive blood pressure measurement (iNIBP) in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Additionally, the influence of vasoactive medication on potential measurement differences was assessed.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

At a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four patients with PAD undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the lower limbs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Continuous noninvasive blood pressures were measured with the "ClearSight" system and compared to standard iNIBPs. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of 13 mmHg (±15) between cNIBP-CS and iNIBP, with 95% limits of agreement (LOA) ranging from -17 to 42 mmHg. When comparing both medication groups, a similar mean bias was found for phenylephrine and dobutamine (12 mmHg [±13] and 13 mmHg [±13], respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this study, in patients with PAD, cNIBP-CS showed an underestimation of blood pressure compared to iNIBP in phenylephrine- and dobutamine-treated patients. Compared to previous studies, a larger bias and wider 95% LOA were found.

Agreement between distal and forearm radial arterial pressures in patients undergoing prone spinal surgery: a prospective, self-controlled, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To test agreement and interchangeability between distal (dRA) and forearm radial arterial (RA) pressures (AP) during general anesthesia (GA) for prone spinal surgery.

METHODS

This prospective observational study involved 40 patients scheduled for GA spinal surgery. The right dRA and left forearm RA were cannulated in all patients to continuously measure invasive blood pressures (IBP). We compared the agreement and trending ability of systolic AP (SAP), diastolic AP (DAP), and mean AP (MAP) at each site 15 minutes after tracheal intubation, start of surgery, 30 and 60 minutes after the start of surgery, and after skin suturing.

RESULTS

Paired BP values (n = 184) (37 cases) were analyzed. The bias (standard deviation), limits of agreement, and percentage error were: SAP: 0.19 (3.03), -5.75 to 6.12, and 5.04%; DAP: -0.06 (1.75), -3.50 to 3.38, and 5.10%; and MAP: 0.08 (1.52), -2.90 to 3.05, and 3.54%, respectively. The linear regression coefficients of determination were 0.981, 0.982, and 0.988 for SAPs, DAPs, and MAPs, respectively; four-quadrant plot concordance rates were 95.11%, 92.03%, and 92.66%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

All arterial BPs showed good agreement and trending capabilities for both the dRA and RA. The dRA may be substituted for the RA in IBP monitoring.

Non invasive hemodynamic monitoring for fluids and blood resuscitation during placenta praevia accreta cesarean delivery: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

We carry out a retrospective observational analysis of clinical records of patients with major placenta praevia who underwent cesarean section surgery over a period of 20 months in our hospital. Out of a total of 40 patients, 20 were subjected to Goal-Directed Therapy (GDT) implemented with non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring using the EV1000 ClearSight system (Group I) and 20 to standard hemodynamic monitoring (Group II). Given the risk of conspicuous blood loss, this study evaluate the impact on maternal and fetal health of GDT relative to standard hemodynamic monitoring.

RESULTS

Average total infusion of fluids was 1600 +/- 350 ml. Use of blood products occurred in 29 patients (72,5%), of which 11 had a hysterectomy and 8 were treated with Bakri Balloons. For 2 patients > 1000 mL of concentrated red blood cells were used. When stroke volume index SVI dropped below 35 mL/m2/beat, it responded well to the infusion of at least 2 crystalloid boluses (5 ml/kg) in 7 patients. Cardiac index (CI) increased in 8 patients in concomitance with a reduction in medium arterial pressure (MAP), but the use of ephedrine (10 mg iv) re-established acceptable baseline values. Group I means are higher than Group II means for MAP, lower for RBC usage, end-of-surgery maternal lactates and fetal pH, and for LOS. Statistical analysis determines that the null hypotheses of equalities between Groups I and II can be rejected for all measures apart from MAP at baseline and induction. Proportions of serious complications in Groups I and II are respectively 10% and 32% and Boschloo's test rejects the null of equality of proportions against the alternative hypothesis of lower proportion of occurrence in Group I than in Group II.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypovolemia can lead to vasoconstriction and inadequate perfusion with decreased oxygen delivery to organs and peripheral tissues and ultimately cause organ dysfunction. Despite the small sample size due to the rarity of the pathology, our statistical analysis finds evidence in favor of more favorable clinical outcomes for patients who received GDT implemented with non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring infusion relative to patients who received standard hemodynamic monitoring.

The consistency of invasive and non-invasive arterial blood pressure for the assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation in NICU patients

Background

Studies of the clinical application of dynamic cerebral autoregulation show considerable variations, and differences in blood pressure devices may be one of the reasons for this variation. Few studies have examined the consistency of invasive and non-invasive arterial blood pressure for evaluating cerebral autoregulation. We attempted to investigate the agreement between invasive and non-invasive blood pressure methods in the assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation with transfer function analysis.

Methods

Continuous cerebral blood flow velocity and continuous invasive and non-invasive arterial blood pressure were simultaneously recorded for 15 min. Transfer function analysis was applied to derive the phase shift, gain and coherence function at all frequency bands from the first 5, 10, and 15 min of the 15-min recordings. The consistency was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient.

Results

The consistency of invasive and noninvasive blood pressure methods for the assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation was poor at 5 min, slightly improved at 10 min, and good at 15 min. The values of the phase shift at the low-frequency band measured by the non-invasive device were higher than those measured with invasive equipment. The coherence function values measured by the invasive technique were higher than the values derived from the non-invasive method.

Conclusion

Both invasive and non-invasive arterial blood pressure methods have good agreement in evaluating dynamic cerebral autoregulation when the recording duration reaches 15 min. The phase shift values measured with non-invasive techniques are higher than those measured with invasive devices. We recommend selecting the most appropriate blood pressure device to measure cerebral autoregulation based on the disease, purpose, and design.

The Use of Non-Invasive Continuous Blood Pressure Measuring (ClearSight®) during Central Neuraxial Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section—A Retrospective Validation Study

The close monitoring of blood pressure during a caesarean section performed under central neuraxial anaesthesia should be the standard of safe anaesthesia. As classical oscillometric and invasive blood pressure measuring have intrinsic disadvantages, we investigated a novel, non-invasive technique for continuous blood pressure measuring. Methods: In this monocentric, retrospective data analysis, the reliability of continuous non-invasive blood pressure measuring using ClearSight^® (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) is validated in 31 women undergoing central neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean section. In addition, patients and professionals evaluated ClearSight^® through questioning. Results: 139 measurements from 11 patients were included in the final analysis. Employing Bland–Altman analyses, we identified a bias of −10.8 mmHg for systolic, of −0.45 mmHg for diastolic and of +0.68 mmHg for mean arterial blood pressure measurements. Pooling all paired measurements resulted in a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.7 for systolic, of 0.67 for diastolic and of 0.75 for mean arterial blood pressure. Compensating the interindividual differences in linear regressions of the paired measurements provided improved correlation coefficients of 0.73 for systolic, of 0.9 for diastolic and of 0.89 for mean arterial blood pressure measurements. Discussion: Diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure are within an acceptable range of deviation from the reference method, according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) in the patient collective under study. Both patients and professionals prefer ClearSight^® to oscillometric blood pressure measurement in regard of comfort and handling.

Comparison of oscillometric, non-invasive and invasive arterial pressure monitoring in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery – a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study

Background

Oscillometric, non-invasive blood pressure measurement (NIBP) is the first choice of blood pressure monitoring in the majority of low and moderate risk surgeries. In patients with morbid obesity, however, it is subject to several limitations. The aim was to compare arterial pressure monitoring by NIBP and a non-invasive finger-cuff technology (Nexfin®) with the gold-standard invasive arterial pressure (IAP).

Methods

In this secondary analysis of a prospective observational, single centre cohort study, systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were measured at 16 defined perioperative time points including posture changes, fluid bolus administration and pneumoperitoneum (PP) in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Absolute arterial pressures by NIBP, Nexfin® and IAP were compared using correlation and Bland Altman analyses. Interchangeability was defined by a mean difference ≤ 5 mmHg (SD ≤8 mmHg). Percentage error (PE) was calculated as an additional statistical estimate. For hemodynamic trending, concordance rates were analysed according to the Critchley criterion.

Results

Sixty patients (mean body mass index of 49.2 kg/m²) were enrolled and data from 56 finally analysed. Pooled blood pressure values of all time points showed a significant positive correlation for both NIPB and Nexfin® versus IAP. Pooled PE for NIBP versus IAP was 37% (SAP), 35% (DAP) and 30% (MAP), for Nexfin versus IAP 23% (SAP), 26% (DAP) and 22% (MAP). Correlation of MAP was best and PE lowest before induction of anesthesia for NIBP versus IAP (r = 0.72; PE 24%) and after intraoperative fluid bolus administration for Nexfin® versus IAP (r = 0.88; PE: 17.2%). Concordance of MAP trending was 90% (SAP 85%, DAP 89%) for NIBP and 91% (SAP 90%, DAP 86%) for Nexfin®. MAP trending was best during intraoperative ATP positioning for NIBP (97%) and at induction of anesthesia for Nexfin® (97%).

Conclusion

As compared with IAP, interchangeability of absolute pressure values could neither be shown for NIBP nor Nexfin®, however, NIBP showed poorer overall correlation and precision. Overall trending ability was generally high with Nexfin® surpassing NIBP. Nexfin® may likely render individualized decision-making in the management of different hemodynamic stresses during laparoscopic bariatric surgery, particularly where NIBP cannot be reliably established.

Trial registration

The non-interventional, observational study was registered retrospectively at (NCT03184285) on June 12, 2017.

The ClearSight System for Postoperative Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring After Carotid Endarterectomy: A Validation Study

BACKGROUND

The majority of postoperative events in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are of hemodynamic origin, requiring preventive strict postoperative arterial blood pressure (BP) control. This study aimed to assess whether BP monitoring with noninvasive beat-to-beat ClearSight finger BP (BPCS) can replace invasive beat-to-beat radial artery BP (BPRAD) in the postoperative phase.

METHODS

This study was a single-center clinical validation study using a prespecified study protocol. In 48 patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, BPCS and BPRAD were monitored ipsilateral in a simultaneous manner during a 6-hour period on the recovery unit following CEA. Primary endpoints were accuracy and precision of BP derived by ClearSight (Edward Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) vs. the reference standard (Arbocath 20 G, Hospira, Lake Forest, IL) to investigate if BPCS is a reliable noninvasive alternative for BP monitoring postoperatively in CEA patients. Validation was guided by the standard set by the Association for Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), considering a BP-monitor adequate when bias (precision) is <5 (8) mm Hg. Secondary endpoint was percentage under- and overtreatment, defined as exceedance of individual postoperative systolic BP threshold by BPRAD or BPCS in contrast to BPCS or BPRAD, respectively.

RESULTS

The bias (precision) of BPCS compared to BPRAD was -10 (13.6), 8 (7.2) and 4 (7.8) mm Hg for systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure (MAP), respectively. Based on BPCS, undertreatment was 5.6% and overtreatment was 2.4%; however, percentages of undertreatment quadrupled for lower systolic BP thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive MAP, but not systolic and diastolic BP, was similar to invasive BPRAD during postoperative observation following CEA, based on AAMI criteria. However, as systolic BP is currently leading in postoperative monitoring to adjust BP therapy on, BPCS is not a reliable alternative for BPRAD.

Non-Invasive Continuous Measurement of Haemodynamic Parameters-Clinical Utility

The evaluation and monitoring of patients’ haemodynamic parameters are essential in everyday clinical practice. The application of continuous, non-invasive measurement methods is a relatively recent solution. CNAP, ClearSight and many other technologies have been introduced to the market. The use of these techniques for assessing patient eligibility before cardiac procedures, as well as for intraoperative monitoring is currently being widely investigated. Their numerous advantages, including the simplicity of application, time- and cost-effectiveness, and the limited risk of infection, could enforce their further development and potential utility. However, some limitations and contradictions should also be discussed. The aim of this paper is to briefly describe the new findings, give practical examples of the clinical utility of these methods, compare them with invasive techniques, and review the literature on this subject.

Accuracy of noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring using ClearSight during one-lung ventilation

Noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring may be clinically useful in patients who require continuous blood pressure monitoring in situations where arterial catheter placement is limited. Many previous studies on the accuracy of the noninvasive continuous blood pressure monitoring method reported various results. However, there is no research on the effectiveness of noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring during one-lung ventilation. The purpose of this study was to compare arterial blood pressure obtained through invasive method and noninvasive method by using ClearSight during one-lung ventilation.In this retrospective observational study, a total of 26 patients undergoing one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery at a single institution between March and July 2019 were recruited. All patients in this study were cannulated on their radial artery to measure continuously invasive blood pressures and applied ClearSight on the ipsilateral side of the cannulated arm. We compared and analyzed the agreement and trendability of blood pressure recorded with invasive and noninvasive methods during one-lung ventilation.Blood pressure and pulse rate showed a narrower limit of agreement with a percentage error value of around 30%. In addition, the tracking ability of each measurement could be determined by the concordance rate, all of which were below acceptable limits (92%).In noninvasive arterial blood pressure monitoring using ClearSight, mean blood pressure and pulse rate show acceptable agreement with the invasive method.

Clinical Evaluation of a High-fidelity Upper Arm Cuff to Measure Arterial Blood Pressure during Noncardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

In most patients having noncardiac surgery, blood pressure is measured with the oscillometric upper arm cuff method. Although the method is noninvasive and practical, it is known to overestimate intraarterial pressure in hypotension and to underestimate it in hypertension. A high-fidelity upper arm cuff incorporating a hydraulic sensor pad was recently developed. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether noninvasive blood pressure measurements with the new high-fidelity cuff correspond to invasive measurements with a femoral artery catheter, especially at low blood pressure.

METHODS

Simultaneous measurements of blood pressure recorded from a femoral arterial catheter and from the high-fidelity upper arm cuff were compared in 110 patients having major abdominal surgery or neurosurgery.

RESULTS

550 pairs of blood pressure measurements (5 pairs per patient) were considered for analysis. For mean arterial pressure measurements, the average bias was 0 mmHg, and the precision was 3 mmHg. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.96 (P < 0.0001; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.97), and the percentage error was 9%. Error grid analysis showed that the proportions of mean arterial pressure measurements done with the high-fidelity cuff method were 98.4% in zone A (no risk), 1.6% in zone B (low risk) and 0% in zones C, D, and E (moderate, significant, and dangerous risk, respectively). The high-fidelity cuff method detected mean arterial pressure values less than 65 mmHg with a sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 74 to 92%) and a specificity of 97% (95% CI, 95% to 98%). To detect changes in mean arterial pressure of more than 5 mmHg, the concordance rate between the two methods was 99.7%. Comparable accuracy and precision were observed for systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The new high-fidelity upper arm cuff method met the current international standards in terms of accuracy and precision. It was also very accurate to track changes in blood pressure and reliably detect severe hypotension during noncardiac surgery.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Continuous Non-Invasive Arterial Pressure Monitoring (ClearSight System) and Ankle Blood Pressure Measurements as Alternatives to Conventional Arm Blood Pressure

Measuring blood pressure (BP) via a pneumatic cuff placed around the arm has long been the standard method. However, in clinical situations where BP monitoring at the arm is difficult, the ankle is frequently used instead. We compared continuous non-invasive blood pressure (CNBP) measurements obtained at the finger, ankle BP and arm BP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Arm BP, ankle BP (both obtained with a conventional pneumatic cuff) and CNBP measurements were obtained every 2.5 min during surgery. Correlation and Bland–Altman analyses were performed and differences among measurements were analyzed using a linear mixed model. A total of 245 sets of BP measurements were obtained from 10 patients. All systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean blood pressure (MBP) measurements of ankle BP and CNBP were positively correlated with the arm BP measurements (Spearman rho 0.688–0.836, p < 0.001 for each correlation). The difference between CNBP and arm SBP was significantly smaller (least squares mean (95% confidence interval): −6.03 (−11.40, −0.67)) compared to that between ankle and arm SBP (least squares mean (95% CI): −15.32 (−20.69, −9.96), p = 0.019). However, this significant difference was not observed in DBP and MBP (−1.23 vs. 1.75, p = 0.190 and −3.85 vs. −2.63, p = 0.604, respectively). Ankle SBP measurements showed larger differences from arm SBP measurements than did CNBP SBP measurements in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. CNBP could serve as a useful alternative to ankle BP when standard arm BP measurements cannot be obtained.

Performance of the Hypotension Prediction Index with non-invasive arterial pressure waveforms in non-cardiac surgical patients

An algorithm derived from machine learning uses the arterial waveform to predict intraoperative hypotension some minutes before episodes, possibly giving clinician’s time to intervene and prevent hypotension. Whether the Hypotension Prediction Index works well with noninvasive arterial pressure waveforms remains unknown. We therefore evaluated sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of the Index based on non-invasive arterial waveform estimates. We used continuous hemodynamic data measured from ClearSight (formerly Nexfin) noninvasive finger blood pressure monitors in surgical patients. We re-evaluated data from a trial that included 320 adults ≥ 45 years old designated ASA physical status 3 or 4 who had moderate-to-high-risk non-cardiac surgery with general anesthesia. We calculated sensitivity and specificity for predicting hypotension, defined as mean arterial pressure ≤ 65 mmHg for at least 1 min, and characterized the relationship with receiver operating characteristics curves. We also evaluated the number of hypotensive events at various ranges of the Hypotension Prediction Index. And finally, we calculated the positive predictive value for hypotension episodes when the Prediction Index threshold was 85. The algorithm predicted hypotension 5 min in advance, with a sensitivity of 0.86 [95% confidence interval 0.82, 0.89] and specificity 0.86 [0.82, 0.89]. At 10 min, the sensitivity was 0.83 [0.79, 0.86] and the specificity was 0.83 [0.79, 0.86]. And at 15 min, the sensitivity was 0.75 [0.71, 0.80] and the specificity was 0.75 [0.71, 0.80]. The positive predictive value of the algorithm prediction at an Index threshold of 85 was 0.83 [0.79, 0.87]. A Hypotension Prediction Index of 80–89 provided a median of 6.0 [95% confidence interval 5.3, 6.7] minutes warning before mean arterial pressure decreased to < 65 mmHg. The Hypotension Prediction Index, which was developed and validated with invasive arterial waveforms, predicts intraoperative hypotension reasonably well from non-invasive estimates of the arterial waveform. Hypotension prediction, along with appropriate management, can potentially reduce intraoperative hypotension. Being able to use the non-invasive pressure waveform will widen the range of patients who might benefit.

Clinical Trial Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02872896.